Monthly Archives: June 2016

English: Photo taken at the 1912 Republican National Convention held at the Chicago Coliseum, Chicago, Illinois, June 18-22. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, is heading toward July’s national party convention with a majority of delegates (as “bound” by state primaries and caucuses) in hand. But ever since it became clear that he would garner that majority, both he and the GOP leadership have spent a good deal of time trying to snuff out talk of a floor revolt by those delegates against his nomination and in favor of some other candidate’s.

“The Republican National Committee put out a statement ‘you can’t do it, it’s not legal, you can’t do it, you’re not allowed to do it,'” says Trump.

Is Trump right? Is it “illegal” for the delegates to do what they want instead of what Trump and the RNC claim the rules demand?

In a word, no.

Keep in mind that at a national convention, the delegates run the national committee, not the other way around. They make the rules. They can change the rules. They can suspend the rules. And even the rules as written leave room for a revolt.

In order to receive the nomination, Republican National Convention rule 40(d) requires a candidate to receive a majority of “the votes entitled to be cast.” In other words, the votes of a majority of the total number of registered delegates, not just of a majority of the delegates who happen to actually vote.

Rule 16, section 2, forbids the convention’s secretary to recognize the vote of a delegate bound to a particular candidate by a primary or caucus outcome if that vote is cast for another candidate … but no rule requires a delegate to vote at all.

If enough Trump-bound delegates with “votes entitled to be cast” decline to vote on the first ballot, Trump won’t get a majority on that ballot. And on subsequent ballots, delegates are no longer bound to candidates — they can vote for their nominee of choice.

100% possible, 100% legal … but how likely? Well, that depends on the party’s leadership.

Party officials enjoy quite a bit of power at conventions. At the recent Libertarian National Convention, there were times when a “quorum call” (a head count to ensure enough delegates are present to legally do business) would have resulted in adjournment. There were calls from the floor to make that happen … but the chair apparently just didn’t hear them (I’m sure you get my meaning). Supporters of Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 Republican presidential campaigns still complain about the party establishment’s dirty parliamentary tricks at caucuses and conventions.

The likelihood of a delegate revolt in Cleveland is really mostly a matter of whether or not Reince Priebus and Company WANT a delegate revolt in Cleveland. On that question, your guess is as good as mine.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

On June 23 the US Supreme Court ruled, in Birchfield v. North Dakota, that police officers may require suspected drunk drivers to take breathalyzer tests without warrants as required by the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment and under criminal penalty should they refuse. The court did go so far as to leave the constitutional warrant requirement intact for blood tests. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, lays out the chilling logic for differentiating between the two:

“Because breath tests are significantly less intrusive than blood tests and in most cases amply serve law enforcement interests, a breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving. No warrant is needed in this situation. ”

Searching the shed behind my house would certainly be “significantly less intrusive” than searching my closet or requiring me to open the lock box in which I keep important personal documents. Does this mean that the police should be free to poke around in my shed without procuring a warrant based on probable cause to believe I’ve committed a crime, if doing so happens to “amply serve their interests?” No, it doesn’t. The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures isn’t there for the convenience of law enforcement. It’s there to protect everyone else’s rights from abuses BY law enforcement.

And the thing is, it’s never been easier for the cop on the street to get a warrant within minutes, or to prove that the warrant application is (or was) justified. Most jurisdictions have judges “on call” to handle warrant applications 24/7. Between radios and cell phones, police officers are almost never unable to communicate with their departments or with those judges. Cell phone video, dash camera video and, more and more lately, body camera video are all available for reference to establish that probable cause exists (or, in retrospect, existed).

Laws requiring drivers to acquiesce in breathalyzer tests absent warrants — as well as other unconstitutional excesses such as random “DUI checkpoints” where drivers are stopped and interrogated absent any reason at all to believe they’ve committed crimes — aren’t about fighting drunk driving or making the roads safe.

These laws are about making law enforcement’s job easier. Which sounds nice, but gets things backward. A peace officer’s job is to keep the peace by the rules, easy or not. Absent those rules, cops become the public’s enemies rather than its servants.

These laws are about greasing the squeaky wheel. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), a tired special interest group that has long since fulfilled its founder’s purpose, is now mostly interested in keeping its revenues (more than $30 million per year as of 2013) coming by lobbying against the rights of those Americans who aren’t among its 400-plus employees.

And yes, these laws are at least a little bit about reminding the serfs just who’s in charge.

What these laws are not is constitutional. And that should be the only thing the Supreme Court considers in its deliberations.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

English: The inscription Equal Justice Under Law as seen on the frieze of the United States Supreme Court building (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On June 23, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of “race-conscious admissions” at America’s state-operated colleges and universities. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, holds that the form of racial discrimination known as “affirmative action” is lawful under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Yes, you read that correctly. No, it doesn’t make any sense at all. The whole idea of equal protection is, um, EQUAL protection. That means neither special privilege nor special punishment based on non-essentials like skin color.

When the expression “race-conscious” crosses my field of view, it’s usually a safe bet that the person using it is a “white supremacist” or “white separatist” chiding those of similar skin tone for not joining him in his dislike of those of darker hue. And usually the vast majority of us see that for what it is and reject it, as we should.

Usually. But not when racial quotas and set-asides come up for consideration in the courts. Then racism suddenly becomes not just acceptable but mandatory, or at least de rigueur, in stark contrast to Dr. Martin Luther King’s call for a society where we are judged on the content of our characters rather than on the color of our skins.

Does “structural” or “institutional” racism still exist, functioning so as to deprive people of color of their fair share of opportunities in our shared society? I’m not among those who dismiss the idea out of hand. In fact, I think it quite likely to be true.

Can structural/institutional racism be repaired or eliminated by adding more layers of structural/institutional racism atop the original ugly substrate? No. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Nor do three, four or five.

Color-blindness in college and university admissions is neither the first nor the last step in eliminating racism as a factor in the availability of post-secondary education opportunities. But it is certainly a necessary step, to be taken along with, rather than after, rooting out racial bias in curriculum, teaching and testing.

It’s demoralizing in this day and age to find Jim Crow alive and well in the form of state institutions demanding (and basing decisions on) disclosure of individuals’ racial and ethnic backgrounds.

It’s even more demoralizing — indeed, it’s beyond disgusting — to see the US Supreme Court affirming and supporting that racial discrimination in the name of “equal protection.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

To the extent possible under law,
Thomas L. Knapp
has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to
The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
This work is published from:
United States.

Note: The public domain dedication does NOT cover photos on the site, only text and audio. Photos are from off-site and will include license information via link or caption.